Harvinder Singh Phoolka

The police had earlier, on its own, closed all cases against Sajjan Kumar without filing any charge sheet in the Court against him. The only case, where the charge sheet was filed, was handled by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the basis of a complaint of Anwar Kaur that Sajjan Kumar was leading the mob that killed her husband Navin Singh at Sultanpuri in West Delhi.

This was the last case against any political leader in the 1984 carnage. The other two leaders involved in this massacre were HKL Bhagat and Jagdish Tytler. HKL Bhagat was accused of organizing the mobs that massacred innocent Sikhs in East Delhi. In his constituency 1,086 Sikhs (official figures) had been brutally killed. In spite of the allegations of the riot victims from day one, no case was registered against HKL Bhagat.

Even after the recommendations of the Jain Aggarwal Committee (comprising a retired High Court Judge and a retired Director General of Police), no case was registered against HKL Bhagat. When Madan Lal Khurana became the Chief Minister of Delhi he pressurized the Central Government to register cases. Thus two cases were registered, however, the police closed both the cases on its own without filing any charge sheet in the Court. One of these has now been referred to, by the Central Government, to CBI for re-investigation. However, two widows named HKL Bhagat in the Court of Mr. S.N. Dhingra, Additional Sessions Judge, while giving their evidences in relation to the murder of their husbands.

Mr. Dhingra, summoned HKL Bhagat in both these cases. But unfortunately, one of the widows, Satnami Bai, turned hostile and did not recognize Bhagat in the Court. There are wide spread allegations of a dubious role played by one of the leaders of the victims, Mr. Atma Singh Lubana who was also a member of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee at that time. Later Mr. Lubana joined Akali Dal (Badal).

In the other case Darshan Kaur struck to her statement and identified Bhagat in the Court. However, Bhagat was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manju Goel on 20.12.2001 and an appeal has been filed in the Hon’ble High Court against the said judgment, which is still pending. Regarding the role of Jagdish Tytler, he was accused of organizing mobs to kill Sikhs in North Delhi. The police did not register any case against him as well, even after the recommendations of the Jain Aggarwal Committee. During the tenure of Madan Lal Khurana, two cases were registered against Bhagat, but the police gave him clean chit in both and did not even file a charge sheet.

The present case, in which Sajjan Kumar has been acquitted recently, was registered by the CBI on September 7 1989, during the tenure of V.P. Singh’s government. This case was registered on the basis of recommendations of Poti Rosha Committee, which was headed by a retired Chief Justice of the High Court and a retired Director General of Police.

Justice Misra Commission of Enquiry, whose report though was an eyewash, faced with overwhelming evidence, was forced to hold that whenever allegations were leveled against politicians and police officers the police did not register any case and when the cases were registered, the names of the police officers or the politicians were deleted. Faced with this situation Justice Misra recommended formation of a Committee comprising a retired High Court Judge and a senior police offer to recommend registration of such cases.

On the basis of these recommendations the Government appointed a Committee comprising Justice (Retd.) Mr M.L. Jain retired judge of the High Court of Delhi, and Mr A.K. Banerjee retired Inspector General of Police (commonly called as Jain Bannerjee Committee) in February, 1987. This Committee recommended registration of cases against Sajjan Kumar in September, 1987 on the basis of the complaint of Anwar Kaur.

However, the government did not register any case even after this recommendation. When the Committee put pressure on the Government to implement its recommendations a Writ Petition was filed in Delhi High Court by one of the accused in Sajjan Kumar’s case. The Delhi High Court, on the first day itself granted stay against registration of any case based on the recommendations of this Committee. Obviously, the Government counsel also did not oppose.

Citizens Justice Committee through its Secretary, Mr H.S. Phoolka intervened in the matter and pressed for vacating the stay. After fighting for two years the Committee lost the case and the Delhi High Court quashed the appointment of Justice Jain Banerjee Committee. Citizens Justice Committee filed an Appeal in the Supreme Court. In the meantime V.P. Singh government came in power. We took up the matter with the VP Singh Government and ultimately a new Committee was appointed with fresh terms of reference. This was the Poti Rosha Committee. It was this Committee, which recommended registration of the case against Sajjan Kumar and on that basis VP Singh Government directed the CBI to register a case.

By the time the CBI had completed the investigation the Congress Government came in power at the Centre. In the year 1992 the CBI completed the investigations and applied to the Central Government for grant of sanction to file the charge sheet. The Narasimha Rao Government in the Centre slept over the matter for two years. When Madan Lal Khurana became the Chief Minister of Delhi, he appointed Narula Committee to recommend and advise him on the steps to be taken to punish the guilty.

One of the recommendations of Narula Committee was to impress upon the Central Government to grant sanction in this matter. Mr. Khurana took up the matter with the Central Government and in the middle of 1994, the Central Government decided that the matter does not fall within its purview and sent the case to the Lt. Governor of Delhi.

It took two years for the Narasimha Rao Government to decide that it does not fall within Centre’s purview in a case of this nature, where 4,000 Sikhs were massacred. As if eight years of delay in filing the charge sheet was not enough, Narasimha Rao Government further decided to sleep over the matter to ensure that delay should kill the matter itself. Ultimately, the CBI was able to file the charge sheet in December, 1994.

In the 1984 Sikh pogrom thousands of Sikh men were burned by putting burning tyres around them. The Spokesman Weekly, Chandigarh

The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in the year 1999, fifteen years after the incident. Two witnesses namely Salawati Kaur and Fota Singh deposed before the Court that Sajjan Kumar addressed a meeting in front of Block A-4 Gurudwara and gave instructions to kill Sikhs. These two witnesses withstood the cross examination by a battery of lawyers representing Sajjan Kumar and other accused.

The statement of Anwar Kaur, the Complainant in this case was recorded on 22nd March, 1999. In her statement Anwar Kaur states as follows:

The mob comprised of among other persons the accused Sajjan Kumar.

During her cross examination on 23rd March, 1999 and on 23rd May, 1999, no questions were asked regarding her statement against Sajjan Kumar. In the cross examination on 14.9.1999 by Sajjan Kumar’s counsel, she withstood by the statement made by her in the examination in chief. Anwar Kaur stated:

I had myself seen the accused Sajjan Kumar in the mob. However, 2/3 months after the incident, I was even told by some persons that Sajjan Kumar was amongst the leaders. I had named even Sajjan Kumar while reporting the matter to the SHO, Police Station Sultanpuri, but I do not know whether he had mentioned his name in the report or not.

The cross examination was not concluded on that day for obvious reasons. On the next date i.e. on 6.10.1999, Sajjan Kumar’s lawyer continued the cross examination. Anwar Kaur further stated:

It is incorrect to suggest that on the dates of hearing, when I come to the court to make a statement I depose at the instance of the police. I did not go to the police on the last date of hearing before coming to this court. I had named Sajjan Kumar as I had been told by the police that he was in the mob. I myself had not seen him in the mob on that date.

On a perusal of the above statement of Anwar Kaur made on 6.10.1999, it appears that there has been some error while recording her statement. It is not a clear statement, which could discard her testimony on 23.3.1999 during the examination in chief and also on 14.9.1999 during her cross examination.

After Anwar Kaur, five other witnesses appeared, but unfortunately all of them turned hostile. Again allegations for having turned these witnesses hostile are being leveled against the same very person, Atma Singh Lubana, who was responsible for the acquittal of HKL Bhagat. It has been commonly stated that Lubana used his clout, being a member of the Gurudwara Committee and also as an active member of the Akali Dal to win over these witnesses at the instance of Sajjan Kumar.

Sajjan Kumar produced two witnesses in defence. Both these witnesses were inspectors of Delhi Police. Both of them were the investigating officers in FIR no. 250/84. The police had registered a general FIR on 1.11.1984 regarding the whole of Sultanpuri and that was FIR No. 250/84.

Forty-nine murders in Sultanpuri, which took place at different times of the day at different places, even miles away, were investigated and tried together in one FIR and one trial case. As if this defect was not enough, the police did not conduct proper investigation and intentionally left defects in the investigation to protect the guilty. There were allegations that the police and the Investigating Officers in this case were protecting Sajjan Kumar and not making him an accused. It was on account of these allegations that the case of Anwar Kaur was sent to CBI for investigation.

However, the testimony of the two witnesses, Salawati Kaur and Fota Singh, who had clearly deposed against Sajjan Kumar, ought to have returned the findings of conviction, but unfortunately, the Additional Sessions Judge Mrs Maju Goel relied upon the defence witnesses, who happened to be Inspectors of the Delhi Police, and the findings in case No. 250/84 to acquit Sajjan Kumar.

In the concluding part of the judgment the Additional Sessions Judge Mrs Manju Goel holds as follows:

Evidence is poor.

There is no other witness apart from those mentioned above. There is no circumstantial evidence in this case to connect the accused with the offence.

Defence has provided two witnesses who were the Investigation Officers in FIR 250/84. DW-1, Inspector Sukhbir Singh, was the IO till 28 November, 1984. Till then no witness had named any of the accused. He further said that death of Navin Singh, husband of Anwar Kaur, had not been brought to his notice. DW-2 was Inspector Raj Singh who took over the investigation from DW-1. He says that during the entire investigation of FIR 250/84 the name of Sajjan Kumar did not figure.

Thus, the total evidence, carefully scrutinized, fails miserably to prove that either Sajjan Kumar or any other accused person was at all a part of the unlawful assembly. It may be mentioned that case FIR 250/84, which is also tried by this Court, is also decided.

All accused persons in this FIR 250/84 are the same, who have been acquitted on the basis of the evidence led in that case.

In view of the above discussions, I have no option, but to acquit the Accused person. Accused persons are thus acquitted.

Unfortunately, the case where the police had protected and saved Sajjan Kumar, due to which it was sent to CBI, came in the way of conviction of Sajjan Kumar. The Delhi Police not only protected Sajjan Kumar in the case investigated by it, but also rescued Sajjan Kumar in the other case investigated by the CBI. It is unfortunate that the Court did not consider dishonest intention of the investigating agency and the manner in which the police protected Sajjan Kumar makes it an exceptional case.

The Court treated it as an ordinary case and not an exceptional one where the entire machinery including the Government and the prosecution protected the guilty. A duty was cast upon the Court to see through the game of dishonest investigating agency and not to fall prey to it. The court treated it as one of the ordinary cases and fell into the trap laid down by the dishonest investigating agency and acquitted Sajjan Kumar. The judgment has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice.

We are taking up the matter with the Government to file an appeal before the High Court and in the event, the Government does not file an appeal, we will approach the High Court ourselves.

Many victims have deposed before Nanawati Commission against Sajjan Kumar, HKL Bhagat and Jagdish Tytler. Nanawati is still holding his enquiry and is likely to submit his report in mid 2003. We wait to see how Nanawati deals with these allegations.

Our pledge is to fight for justice till the end, their end or our end. We will not give up!

Copyright ©2002 Harvinder Singh Phoolka.   About The Author